Hey, there! Log in / Register
Police: Driver hits bicyclist in Newton, then tries to back up with him still under car
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
What's wrong with this picture?
"According to witnesses (the cyclist) was travelling in a straight line in the far right portion of the road. The car unexpectedly swerved to the right and hit the cylist... Police determined there was no improper operation and did not cite the driver."
Also, before this, second paragraph, "The cyclist was wearing a helmet", couldn't they use this space to insert foreign currency exchange rates as well?
I especially love how the
I especially love how the helmet comment is stuck together with the "traveling in a straight line and right side of road" bit. Is that the checklist to determine fault?
CAR HITS CYCLIST, WHO IS TO BLAME?
-Is the cyclist wearing a helmet, even though it's not required? If not, BLAME
-Is the cyclist moving in a straight line? If not, BLAME
-Is the cyclist in the far right side of the road, even though it's not required? If not, BLAME.
If you have answered YES to the above three, then the cyclist is not to blame. Go ahead and blame him anyway, because this one time, someone on a bike didnt stop for a stop sign, so everyone on a bike is a criminal.
To his credit, the reporter
To his credit, the reporter did get the witness statements, and had the courage to use them. If these statements are not disputed, and there's no citation, I wonder if the suggestion is drivers can't be expected to competently share the road with cyclists- I don't know, it seems like too low of a standard to me. I understand the "There but for the grace of God go I.." and all, but still. Anyway, it's three am, there's nearly no cars, I'm outta here...
Sorry, WHAT?
How does someone overtake and run over a bicyclist and not get cited for anything exactly?
Welcome to Massachusetts
Unless you drive drunk or use a gun, you can do no wrong when you kill somebody with a car. Heck, you can even blow through a red light and kill somebody crossing with the walk light in a pedestrian crossing and get away with the old "sun in my eyes" excuse. (as happened in NoHo).
You can't set a reasonable bar for getting a license, can't get bad drivers off the road, and can't get them held accountable for their behavior in this state. Not sure why this is, either.
before we get out of hand,
before we get out of hand, she didn't kill anyone.
Yes, she should get a citation, but that first paragraph just mentions too much death.
"after interviewing witnesses"
It says police decided not to cite the driver after interviewing witnesses. This probably means the cyclist did one of many things to make it unclear whether or not the operator of the vehicle was at fault.
The cyclist probably did something illegal. I'm sure the police report is more clear than what the Newton Local Paper is writing up.
or perhaps
there was something in the road/crossing the road (i.e. an animal running across Comm Ave - not uncommon) and she swerved and clipped the cyclist. Where would you cite fault? What if she backed up in a panic thinking it would free the cyclist?
We weren't there, we don't know what happened beyond a community news report (for what that's worth), the eyewitnesses do.
One thing worth noting is that East bound cyclists on Comm Ave in Newton are sharing the road with cars. West bound cyclists can use the carriage lane often used only by runners, walkers and cars avoiding traffic. Perhaps it's time for Newton to ban traffic beyond those that live along the carriage lane and allow all cyclists - east and west bound - to use the carriage lane?
Actually, the signs along that section of Comm Ave
specifically direct eastbound cyclists to use the carriageway (which is the signed bike route), and not Route 30 itself.
"Bikes use Carriageway" signs
I noticed one of these signs (while on my bike) on the westbound side of the main part of Comm. Ave. between Hammond St. and Centre St. I dislike riding on the carriage road because: (1) the road surface is not as good as the main part of Comm. Ave. and is interrupted by silly things like brick and cobblestone crosswalks; (2) there are too many pedestrians, rollerbladers, etc. (moving in both eastbound and westbound directions), who simply, but inexplicably, are not watching out for bikes or cars; and (3) the stop signs are far too frequent (and since I always comply with traffic laws when I ride, the constant stopping makes for an unpleasant ride).
I find these new signs troubling because they create disparate expectations among those who use the road (regardless of conveyance). Prediction: there will be another "driver and bicyclist trying to occupy the same space" incident on the main part of Comm. Ave, and the driver will raise the argument (which some will accept, notwithstanding the fact that I believe it is contrary to existing law) that the signs operate to prohibit bicycles from the main part of Commonwealth Ave. That uncertainty, however, helps no one, and must be addressed.
ROADMAN, this issue sounds like it is right in your wheelhouse - what say you about the wisdom of these signs?
Good points, IssacG
These are guide signs (white on green) that direct cyclists that they should use the carriageway instead of Comm Ave/Route 30 (sorry if my earlier post was misleading). I suspect that legally, the carriageway is simlar to a bike lane, that there is no legal requirement that bikes stay on it.
However, if the current law specifically prohibits cyclists from using the Comm Ave mainline in the carriageway section (highly doubtful, unless someone can provide a cite), then the applicable signs should be regulatory (black on white) and read "MUST USE CARRIAGEWAY" instead of just "USE CARRIAGEWAY". Or, the 'bike' guide signs should be supplemented with "no bicyclists" signs facing the Comm Ave mainline itself. However, the latter would just add more signs and be possibly confusing to both cyclists and drivers.
Given your description of the carriageway traffic and condition, my guess is that these signs, which I understand predate the current Comm Ave work by several years, were originally installed with the intent of directing recreational riders, and not bike commuters.
"after interviewing witnesses"
It says police decided not to cite the driver after interviewing witnesses. This probably means the cyclist did one of many things to make it unclear whether or not the operator of the vehicle was at fault.
The cyclist probably did something illegal. I'm sure the police report is more clear than what the Newton Local Paper is writing up.
Yes
When in doubt, blame the cyclist. Even if he was wearing a helmet and riding in a straight line. The fact
that the law-abiding citizen tried to back car up while the no-good degenerate scofflaw bicyclist was
still under the car does nothing to support the possibility that maybe the motorist isn't of the highest
driving capabilities.
Was the cyclist cited?
If not, then what doubt were you talking about, if there was any doubt?
What do the police benefit by not citing the driver? Do you think they get some bonus every time a cyclist gets struck and they don't fine the operator of the vehicle? Do you know the statistics in citations issued in pedestrian or cyclist accidents?
Lets also remember that these news stories are 100% wrong 25% of the time (does that make sense?). It could possibly be true the the police are doing some reconstruction of the crash and will cite the operator after the investigation is complete.
What do they need to get out of it?
Maybe they just don't fucking care.
Agreed.
The driver was attempting to back her car up with somebody lodged underneath. How is that not negligence?
I'm guessing the witnesses to this were trying to alert her to the fact that somebody was trapped under there.
PS Mr. Nice, 43% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Oh you two were there now?
How about the police don't show up to any cyclist crash and just allow firefighters to issue citations automatically to any vehicle that is involved with a crash with a cyclist? That seems to be what you two are indicating here.
Hey look, it would be easy for the police to issue a nice $200 ticket every time a cyclist hits a car and just let the courts sort it out. I think we should allow police officers to look at the totality of the circumstances before issuing a citation in these cases don't you?
Unless you guys know something about this crash that I don't, then maybe there is more to what happend here.
PS Mr. Nice, 43% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Maybe. But theres only a 23% chance of that happening.
Or they don't know thing one about the laws
Before Massbike started a special training program, most cops had no frigging clue about the rights and laws for cyclists - then again, why should they learn or know the laws when so many have the attitude that they make up the laws themselves!
Or maybe you know everything.
That we can all agree on.
I know this much
When a cop orders me to get off the roadway and onto a sidewalked marked "no bikes" when there is no obvious problem with riding in the roadway as required by law, and, when confronted with the actual text of the law says "I can't be expected to know the law ... do I look like a lawyer", there is a high level stupid problem in operation.
Read the old e-mail archives for massbike you will see that this loser wasn't the only loser to have no farking clue and be proud of it!
Alternately, check into the court rulings against the Town of Wilmington, the MDC (repeated and multiple), etc.
No you are right...
That cop was wrong so the cop in Newton was wrong too. 100% fair and I can't argue with you because you right all the time.
In all seriousness he probably saw the way you were riding the bike and thought it was in the best interest of everyone in traffic to keep you clear of the road.
And don't tell me about court rulings. For every blog post you have on MassBike, I have 10 examples of clerks and judges dismissing mv/bike charges because a "resonable person" shouldn't be able to do this or that given the circumstances. And this is despite what the written law says.
PS
The magistrate AND second State Police officer in Brookline Court didn't know 90-1b either (and it was unfortunately frozen in my glove box on my court date).
Sorry, Pete
But I'm with Swirly on this one.
I would not have paid an unjust ticket in Brookline had the cop actually known MGL 90-1b (or been interested in learning it from me during an incorrect traffic stop).
I didn't hear the troopers side either though.
But I believe you.
But didn't you say your bike could possibly be able to go over 25mph and that the trooper cited you for failure to stop anyway?
Yes and no
25 mph is the motorized bicycle inherent speed limit for the *driver* in the law...I did not travel at more than 25 mph when I went through the intersection after waiting for the officer to wave us through.
30 mph is the allowable maximum speed for a vehicle to be a motorized bicycle under MA law. At the time, no "limited use" vehicle definition existed and it was either call me a moped (and technically ignore the 30 mph max speed requirement) or call me a motorcycle and legally let me go on the highway with my 49cc scooter (max speed, 35...40 downhill maybe).
The trooper cited me for passing on the right. In the "extra comments" he listed how close we were to a nearby construction site (irrelevant) and that I "refused to stop" (except that I did...he was just pissed by then because I refused to simply accept his "warning"). Neither one was part of the actual citation or fell under 90-1b which was what he cited me on.
did you notice that a 14 year old child was murdered in Boston?
Children are being shot in this city. There are more important priorities for Boston city police. Sorry that your bicycle riding rights aren't at the tippy-top of their list!
Well ...
Newton isn't part of Boston, so BPD wouldn't be responding to this incident no matter what.
Also, concern about something in Newton does not mean lack of concern about something in Boston. Here is a posting about that poor kid in Dorchester.
she was on the SIDEWALK, Pete
his probably means the cyclist did one of many things to make it unclear whether or not the operator of the vehicle was at fault.
The cyclist probably did something illegal.
Look at the photos. She's ON THE SIDEWALK.
At the very least, some sort of ticket for failing to stay within marked lanes? Failure to yield to other traffic?
Also, what exactly do you suppose the cyclist was doing that was illegal AND negated her responsibilities to not run over the cyclist? That cyclist could have been in the center of the lane, legally. They could be to the right of the lane, legally. They can be traveling at any speed below the speed limit. They could be wearing purple polkadots with a giant top hat. Still legal.
AND, don't you think a cop who witnessed the whole thing would tell the paper something more than "he was riding in a straight line wearing a helmet" if the cyclist was doing something illegal?
If I had to do my own report....
based on one photo, three third hand quotes, and one article from a local paper, then yea, I would cite the driver of the car.
But that isn't enough for me to condem the driver of the vehicle. Maybe the bike was in the sidewalk and came out onto the street. Maybe the car was turning onto another street and the bike didn't see the turn signal and decided to pass the vehicle on the right, maybe the cyclist actually admitted to doing something illegal and did not want to go further with anything. There happens to be a lot of honest people in Boston who admit to making a mistake after a crash. I've seen this a lot.
Hey, all I'm saying is that there is usually another story than the one we all see in some local paper. I just don't think it is fair to place blame(on the operator or police here) unless you know all the facts (or at least some of the facts)
unbeliveable
a motorist runs over a cyclist TWICE, and not even a ticket?
she can't seem to operate a car, and should have her license revoked or suspended.
this is the kind of bullshit that makes me want to join critical mass.
Woman drivers
Over the past two weeks, the following acts have been committed against me in traffic by female drivers:
- One ran a stop sign against me near BU after a car that didn't have to stop slowed down to let the two of us proceed from out stop signs. Despite having been at my sign a full three seconds sooner, the woman decided to turn left in front of me after I had already moved into the box.
- Another one decided to cut me off in a rotary, even though I was already in it clear as day.
- The most egregious offense of all came when I was driving through Watertown last week. I was going through a green light at the speed limit. A lady in a minivan on the side street decides to take this exact moment to turn right on her red and cut me right off, then proceed to drive 10 miles below the speed limit. She got the hint and pulled over for me after I tailed her for 50 yards.
In all fairness, a male driver veered into my lane when I visited Burlington this weekend. But my research is proving that most acts committed against me on the road are by female drivers. It's not a pleasant argument, but the science is there.
proof is in the pudding
Car insurance for women is lower than for men because women are more skilled than men when it comes to driving and therefore cause less accidents.
the reverse
I think you've got it backwards. Insurance rates are higher for men because they drive faster and more aggressively than women. This has nothing to do with skill. And frankly, in Massachusetts, both sexes drive like crap. I've never seen a whole region drive as moronically as they do here.
I take it you've never driven ....
> I've never seen a whole region drive as moronically as they do here
... in and around Atlanta. ;~}
fewer accidents = better driving skills
Driving to endanger is reckless and shows a lack of maturity, not macho agressive mad skillz.
Women have more crashes, but
Women have more crashes, but then to be smaller incidents that the cyclist described. Men have less crashes, but the crashes tend to be much more disastrous.
Therefore, while it may piss you off that female drivers cut cyclists more, gives more scares to cars and bikers alike, and perhaps irritate more people in general by their driving, it is a bunch of little mistakes that might do damage, but less serious ones. Men, on the other hand, when they crash, more property damage is done and more deaths happen. Insurance companies care more about deaths and big crashes, they cost more.
maybe they are aiming for you...
... on purpose? almost all studies show that women get into fewer accidents than men. i am guessing the women in question probably know your general attitude towards women. in other words, your general bias skews your so-called "research".
alternate explanation
The bitches just won't get out of poor Mr. Will's way when he wants to change lanes! The nerve!
Over the past two weeks...
The following offenses have been committed against or observed by me in traffic by male drivers:
1) This one's ongoing; as a pedestrian, I frequently nearly get splatted by drivers in Newton when I'm crossing in any one of a number of marked but unsignaled crosswalks. These crosswalks usually have the Big Yellow Sign stating that pedestrians have the right of way there.
2) I was tailgated down LaGrange heading into Newton; that driver eventually crossed the double yellow line into the oncoming lane to roar around me just before a blind curve. I was going at least the speed limit.
3) In Malden, going down Salem/Pleasant/whatever it is at that point Street, I saw the car in front of me tailgating the one in front of it. The tailgated car pulled over, and the tailgater stopped his car in the middle of the single lane, jumped out, and rushed the other car to yell at that driver, effectively completely stopping traffic. I had my phone out to dial 911, but it didn't end up being necessary. I still have the plate # though.
In fairness, both male and female drivers ignore Newton crosswalks. However, MY research is proving that most acts committed against me and others on the road are by male drivers. It's not a pleasant argument, but the
scienceanecdotal evidence is there.Motorist who almost ran into me
Perhaps the same motorist who rushed ahead when I signaled I was turning left on my bike. Felt a lot like a game of chicken: bicyclist motions to turn left, starts turning left and then motorist suddenly speeds up and passes, nearly hitting cyclist.
Unless homicidal drivers are given a reason to be more cautious (like expensive tickets - a better option than a suspension) then more cyclists will be harmed, maimed or killed.
AHA! I figured out why she wasn't charged!
She didn't drag the cyclist for the required 800 feet.
(Also, why did she get a closed hearing?)
Why the driver wasn't charged
Wicked Local Newton updates the story: Woman was trying to turn into her own driveway and the bicyclist was trying to pass her on the right:
I'd love to hear everyones thoughts now.....
Seriously.
here you go.....
-did the driver use a turn signal?
-did the driver speed up ahead of the cyclist just to cut the cyclist off and make the turn 3 seconds quicker?
These are very typical "close calls" that I have in this city. Assuming the driver is going faster than the cyclist then she would have just passed him and she should absolutely have known that he was approaching (unless of course she was on her cell phone).
Also, so a Watertown woman was pulling into her own driveway in Newton? That's a long driveway, and with a bridge to boot!
EDIT, nevermind I just read the updated report, there was all kinds of errors in the previous one that i was still working from. I still don't understand how a car stuck in traffic "suddenly" pulls into a driveway--she sat there for a few minutes before realizing, "oh, this is MY driveway right here, silly me"
Thoughts
So it was 5:20 pm. She hadn't previously passed him. I'm still wondering how she didn't see the biker.
And this still doesn't explain why she started to back up as the dude is under there. Pete, since you were
there, can you tell us what happend?
Right Hook
Classic 'Right Hook', one of the top causes of injuries to cyclists.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22right+hook%22+bi...
Also: http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/90-14.htm
First day I started riding in the spring, at night a woman in an SUV passed me (with my bright blinking rear light, reflective bits on helmet, clothing, and bike) right as we approached the intersection and made a right turn- I don't know if she signaled or not, because I couldn't see either turn signal; that's how close she was. I nearly collided with the rear quarter of her car; if I didn't have disc brakes (it was raining, and rim brakes are pretty useless for panic stops in the rain), I would have.
The next day, I had a guy pass me on Centre street and cut me off to pull into a parking space. While yakking on his #@$!ing cell phone.
of course that law applies to left turns only
It absolutley is a defense if a bicycle sneaks up on your right while you make a right turn...
sorry, grabbed the wrong section
The relevant section is this:
did she overtake and pass the cyclist?
Who knows. Maybe she was driving slowly and the cyclist snuck up on her. Maybe she was texting, not using her signal and murdering a baby at the same time...
We just don't know.
Double standard?
So apparently it's the cyclist's fault when a car turns right into a bike lane without looking and hits the bike. Does it then follow that it's the driver's fault when a bike turns left into a "car lane" without looking and hits the car?
Not really.
In this case the cyclist wasn't in the right lane until after the operator of the vehicle checked the right mirror and started to make the turn (that seems to be the operators story anyway). The cyclist admitted that he was in the car lane and then passed on the right at some point.
And there wasn't a bike lane here I don't think.
My thoughts now
I still find her at fault of 90-14: "It shall not be a defense for any motorist causing an accident with a bicycle that the bicycle was to the right of auto traffic." This is a separate addition to the law that, as far as any bike organizations has been concerned, was added to protect this very situation that just happened. Specifically *because* bikes are allowed to pass on the right in this state, you are *never* to be allowed to defend your action as "reasonable" if you turn to the right and hit a bike that was there. It was a separate section of the law that was added.
Here's how it was entered by the state senate's bill:
The driver in this case can not affirm that her defense was "it's not my fault, I didn't know he was on my right".
I just read the updated
I just read the updated version, and one of the commenters on that article says that MA Bike law states "It shall not be a defense for any motorist causing an accident with a bicycle that the bicycle was to the right of auto traffic." Yet, the article says “The officer felt a reasonable and prudent person would not be expecting someone on their right."
what BS. cops that don't even know the law they're supposed to be enforcing and some incompetent driver ends up getting off without any sort of punishment for reckless actions that could have killed someone. you're always supposed to check on your right.
That is all well and fine,
but didn't the cyclist admit that he was in the 'middle lane' and then passed on the right at some point? So the driver could have looked in her right mirror, saw no one was coming, looked at the sidewalk to make sure no pedestrians were coming the other way, pulled into the driveway at the same time this cyclist admits to pulling to the right to pass, and then the cyclist crashes into the back/side of the vehicle?
It shall not be a defense for a motorist causing an accident with a bicycle that the bicycle was to the right of vehicular traffic.
There is some leeway here with this law. This law is intended for situations where there is a bike on the right or rear right of a vehicle, and the vehicle takes a right turn into a bike and then claims they did not see the bike because the bike was not in the proper lane. This Newton case seems to be one where the biker could not be seen until the last second when he attempted to pass the vehicles on the right. Since a driver is not expected to look in the mirrors at the same time they need to look in the driveway, and the left part of the sidewalk for pedestrians, there is some ground here for some leeway.
That is my take anyway.
What if it was a pedestrian hit on the sidewalk?
hm?
except that
the law doesnt read that way.
Ha!
You are right. Shame on me for believing something Brett posted. Although I think he meant the earlier part of that section (as did I).
No person operating a vehicle that overtakes and passes a bicyclist proceeding in the same direction shall make a right turn at an intersection or driveway unless the turn can be made at a safe distance from the bicyclist at a speed that is reasonable and proper
Then again, the vehicle never passed or overtook the bike so I'm not sure that would apply here either.
Cyclists are allowed to pass on the right: C85 S11b
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/85-11b.htm
So, upon further reflection: yeah, she's not in violation of that section specifically barring people from passing and then making a right turn. However, since the cyclist is allowed to pass her on the right, failure to check her mirrors qualifies as negligent operation.
Basically, she did the equivalent of making a right turn from the left lane in a two-lane road.
You can't expect the driver to see you, or even look
Avid bike rider here.....
When I'm riding in traffic that is going about the same speed as me, I am really careful about what I do because the cars in front of me may not know I'm there. And face it, it's hard to see a cyclist, and people simply don't look in their mirror when taking a right (no bike lanes). I don't do it when I drive, so I wouldn't expect non-cyclists to look. Not gonna happen. As for passing cars on the right, again, really carefully and only when they are stopped. If the cars are moving, I generally will not pass, but rather, will pick a spot between cars and ride with the traffic.
Being "right" won't buy me shit laying in a hospital bed, especially when "right" is vague, at best.
Sorry Brett, but I strongly disagree. You can't ride like a maniac up the right and get pissed at a motorist because they took a right from the right lane. They simply will not see you. A cyclist has a responsibility to ride in a predictable manner, and that's not predictable.
Side note: Lots of cyclist/car threads lately (unfortunately because of accidents) and they seem to generate the highest post counts.
I agree with your suggestions
I agree with your suggestions and I do exactly what you describe myself. I cringe when I see cyclists flying by slow moving cars on the right. I have seen situations where motorists would have right hooked a cyclist had they not happened to look in the mirror before turning.
Now, if I looked at the correct section of road in google maps, and the lane markings haven't changed, it appears to be a wide two lane road with a shoulder marked off with a solid line. I am curious if you think the situation would be different if the shoulder was marked with bike symbols instead of left empty. I'm not sure how the law rules on this, but personally when driving I merge over as far right as possible, even into a bike lane, before making a right turn, to prevent this type of situation.
read the original article
Sorry Brett, but I strongly disagree. You can't ride like a maniac up the right and get pissed at a motorist because they took a right from the right lane. They simply will not see you. A cyclist has a responsibility to ride in a predictable manner, and that's not predictable.
According to the off-duty cop, he was RIDING IN A STRAIGHT LINE.
Nothing about his behavior was described by witnesses as reckless, unpredictable, or "maniac".
I hate fucking apologists like you even more than I hate the drivers who hit cyclists. The law says we have a right to pass traffic on the right. Enforce the laws, instead of making excuses for drivers who can't be bothered to look in their mirrors to keep from killing another person.
If you can't handle learning the applicable laws and rules and driving your vehicle responsibly, you do not belong on the road. None of this "drivers will be drivers" bullshit.
one question
Did the driver, who was supposedly attempting a right turn, bother to use her turn signal? Last I checked, not using turn signals is a ticketable offense - at least in states where they actually write tickets for traffic violations.
Pick the laws you want to obey
Aren't you the same person who claims it's okay to ride thru red lights after stopping even though the law says it isn't? It must be convenient to follow only the laws you'd like to follow.
Yes, using turn signals is a law and cops will even write a ticket for it, but usually on top of more serious offenses. But, it's just being nitpicky. When I'm riding along with traffic, I don't believe any signal, or lack thereof, that any car does. I always assume they're going to do something I don't expect. Probably a good reason I haven't had a bike/car accident in my lifetime.
remember the guy who was run over and dragged 800 feet?
Yes, using turn signals is a law and cops will even write a ticket for it, but usually on top of more serious offenses. But, it's just being nitpicky
http://www.dailynewstribune.com/news/x29007371/Dri...
How it happened:
HOW ABOUT THAT. A driver who doesn't signal and runs stop signs runs over a bicyclist in an intersection. How nitpicky.
The accident has nothing to do with turn signals or not stopping
The driver just plain screwed up. He stopped, and turned exactly when a cyclist was coming by - that's just plain wrong of course. But it has nothing to do with not stopping or turn signals. What's your point? Yes, the driver is a piece of work, but I don't see the relevance to this accident.
Let me repeat
...because apparently you have a reading problem.
Of course he was riding in a straight line, that's irrelevant. If he's ripping down on the right side with total disregard to the cars in the lane, it's not safe, and frankly, it's asshole cycling. A motorist in the right lane will not look in the mirror, and even if they did, the chances of seeing a cyclist are small. Point all the fingers you want, but that's the reality of the situation.
Bike like an asshole all you want. Being right won't do you much good while sitting in a hospital eating thru a tube. This is a borderline case, at best.
Look, asshole.
If he's ripping down on the right side with total disregard to the cars in the lane, it's not safe, and frankly, it's asshole cycling. A motorist in the right lane will not look in the mirror, and even if they did, the chances of seeing a cyclist are small.
Stop inventing all sorts of imaginary scenarios that help you justify to yourself the almost-fatal injuries to a cyclist. Now, as to the rest of your comments: The only time it matters if a cyclist is passing you at ANY speed is when you're about to make a turn. And it's REAL FUCKING SIMPLE how you do that. Since this state has no real driving exam and no driver education, here's my public service for the day:
STEP ONE: Turn on turn signal to caution an approaching biker that you intend to make a turn in the immediate future.
STEP TWO: look in rear view mirror and right mirror for any SIX FOOT TALL, THREE FOOT WIDE OBJECTS. SO HARD TO SPOT SO CHECK TWICE.
STEP THREE: Execute turn
STEP FOUR: ???
STEP FIVE: PROFIT.
If you can't spot a SIX FOOT TALL OBJECT in your rear view mirrors that is close enough to be an issue in the first place...YOU DO NOT BELONG ON THE ROAD.
By the way: biking nearly the same speed as traffic, thus prolonging the time you spend next to any one car, possibly in that driver's blind spot, and not being a moving object, which our brains are very good at looking for? Yeah, that's so safe.
What happens though....
If inbetween steps 2 and 3 the cyclist attempts to pass that vehicle on the right and crashes into the back/side of the vehicle? Doesn't that kind of sound what happens here? Especially hearing that the cyclist admitted to something regarding him being at fault?
Maybe you should include "check three or four times" in your little chart. Or at least put a "check twice asshole" in there.
bikers don't materialize out of nowhere
Come on. If you signal, and then check your mirrors, a cyclist isn't going to teleport in. If you can't see them right when you check your mirrors, they're plenty far away enough that they won't get cut off.
The cyclist said....
That he was behind the vehicles and at one point decided to pass. So I assumed the driver of the vehicle either did not check her mirrors at all, or checked them and after that the cyclist pulled out to pass her.
Isn't that possible?
The cyclist does have some responsibility
My point is that, even though the law does not specifically state it, the cyclist does not have free reign on the right side on the road. S/he has a responsibility to ride in a safe manner and anticipate cars not being able to see him/her. It's defensive bicycling. Yes, in a perfect world, there would be wide bike lanes and everybody would flow along nicely, looking out for each other. In the real world, a driver in the right lane may or may not check the right mirror, and even if they do, they still may not see the cyclist. That's the real world, welcome to it.
Cycle in the city much?
Clearly not. If you did, you would know that a right turn signal is a good indication for the cyclist to NOT pass on the right. If idiot oblivious heavy equipment operator was signalling, I'd put this on the cyclist. If not, it is all on her for failure to signal.
I can't wait to see a "WAHHHHHH I got a ticket in Toronto/Ottawa/Minneapolis" whine when you fail to obey this "picky little law" about using directionals or get busted for jaywalking in Calgary, etc.. Most of the world takes these basic safety laws more seriously.
I'm guessing she put the brakes on
I bike more than enough to be well aware of all the hazards of riding anywhere.
Since we don't know exactly what happened, this is all hypothetical. I'm guessing that the motorist had to put her brakes on well before she turned right, which is a good indication to the cyclist that something is about to happen and that it might not be a good idea to blow by on the right. Maybe. Maybe she was driving slow enough to not need the brakes. Who knows.
As an aside, regardless of who is at fault, I feel really bad for the cyclist. Being trapped under the car, and then having the driver try to move while he was under there......man, I'd want to kill her. Props to all the samaritans that helped out.
Stop making thing up Merlin.
There are 7 or 8 posters here who know exactly what happened.
No need to guess
The article lays out that the car was in a line of traffic just shy of her driveway. When it freed up in front of her, she pulled into her driveway. Was she on her brakes? Sure, she was already stuck behind someone right next to her driveway.
If she was in a line of traffic
How could the bicyclist not have passed her? Maybe he turned a donkey wheel in an underground bunker in
some uncharted island with a strange electro-magnetic current in the pacific and just was somehow transported to Newton? Or maybe he really died and those were all his dead friends that lifted the car off him?
So, the logical conclusion is?
Ideally, I assume that the laws are setup to protect us from each other when it comes to operating on the road, right? Cars shouldn't hit bikes and bikes shouldn't hit cars. When the two collide, someone screwed up. Either the bike puts themselves into the way by doing something wrong or the car does by going where the bike was supposed to be. Can we all agree on that? The only real "accidents" where no fault could possibly be assigned would be in cases of total catastrophe (in order to avoid that plane landing on the road, the car moved right as calmly as could be expected and into the biker who fell into a pile of pillows). I don't think this case rises to catastrophic "neither driver could have done anything better in this situation" levels.
In that case, someone did something wrong. Either the bike should never have been where it was and therefore should be cited or the car driver never should have turned the way she did without first checking better as to what was on her right when she moved and should be cited.
Seeing as how the car driver wasn't cited, I'm guessing the bicyclist is just lucky he's not in jail right now.
"greater than reasonable speed"
What is a safe speed for a cycle in a situation like this? How fast was the cyclist going in stop and go traffic when he decided to pass all the vehicles on the right? Was it in fact safe to pass on the right? Did the vehicle signal? Did the vehicle signal before or after the operator checked the mirror? How much time was there between when the operator first looked in her mirror and the time she started to pull left into her driveway?
Remember the cyclist made some statements (that none of us had read) that may explain his mindset when he attempted to pass these cars on the right.
I agree with Kaz though, there were probably several factors on both sides which would probably put some blame on both people in this instance.
non-cyclist
I haven't ridden a bike in fifteen years, and I check my mirror for cyclists every single time I turn right in the city, which I do multiple times per day. There really is no reason not to, unless you are an "autopilot driver". But that's its own problem.
The police report is out, the
The police report is out, the the bike rider did NOTHING wrong. Not a single law broken on his part.
I know some people here were claiming that he PROBABLY did something illegal. Nope.
----
MR. GUBBELS STATED THAT HE WAS BICYCLING EAST BOUND ON THE SHOULDER OF THE ROAD AT APPROXIMATELY 15MPH. MR. GUBBELS STATED THAT TRAFFIC WAS MOVING VERY SLOWLY AND/OR STOPPED AND HE WAS PASSING ALL OF THE SLOW MOVING TRAFFIC ON THE RIGHT. MR. GUBBELS STATED THAT THE RED TOYOTA MA REG #49HJ33 UNEXPECTEDLY PULLED ABRUPTLY TO THE RIGHT CAUSING MR. GUBBELS TO STRIKE THE VEHICLE
So why wasnt she cited?
A different interpretation
Sean Roche analyzes the report.
Huh??
I'm completely confused. The original post is about a woman making a right on Comm Ave into her driveway...but this police report is about a car turning left onto Grant from Beacon...
The two don't match at all...
Sorry, I screwed up
Sean was discussing two separate incidents. I've left the link to his discussion of the Comm. Ave. collision.
Yep
Ok, now that I've been sure to read the correct police report, I agree. There is absolutely NOTHING recorded by the officer that suggests the bicyclist was at fault for this accident...then he concludes that it was. A "prudent person" would have seen this guy a mile up the road in their right-hand mirror. We have a driver who was "distracted" about hurrying to take her kids to a birthday party, stuck in traffic, and "abruptly" pulling to the right into the immediate path of the biker...THEN attempting to back up while he was still under the car.
This is a woman who did NOT have control of her vehicle...and yet somehow in this cop's mind it's the biker's fault.
Yup
A few witnesses don't recall seeing the driver signal, the off duty officer says bicyclist going straight and at a prudent speed. So she gets off because a "reasonable person wouldn't expect a bicyclist on the right". What bullshit! My question is: who wrote this report? Cheif Wiggum or Officer Barbrady?
I probably would have cited the driver..
But unless you haven't seen 1000 hearings and court cases on things like this, "what a reasonable person would expect to do" is a legal standard. If you cited this guy the charge would have a 5% chance of holding up in court.
And in the end citing people in these cases doesn't matter anyway. The charge isn't criminal and the cars insurance is going to pay for everything either way.
It's a relief to hear a
It's a relief to hear a policeman say that, as I'm sure many would, just on the principle. I wonder if the officer writing the report applied the passing on right infraction of two motor vehicles as automatically clearing the driver. The other item in the report that struck me, was the two descriptions of the motorist "suddenly swerving to the right", which isn't the way I would expect someone to describe another turning into their driveway in a normal fashion. One thing for sure regardless, if we are cycling to the right of slow traffic, we better damn be sure to keep our own speeds within range of emergency stops as needed.
Comm Ave is a busy road.
So drivers should probably expect to see bike on the right more I think. Then again, if this woman lives there, she could have made that turn a few thousand times though and never seen a biker. I live on a side road and have never, ever looked to my right pulling in my driveway and probably never will.
bicyclist
Does anyone know how the bicyclist is doing? We were at the accident scene and were hoping he is ok. Terrible day for all parties involved.
accident
fyi - she never reversed and did not "gun it". the poor driver who was traumatized by this event - was so freaked out that she did not know what to do and had mult people screaming at her all to do different things and then her car was lifted. thank goodness for bystanders and i hope all individuals involved are ok.